Mid-Monthly 1:7--Special Insert on the 2006 Elections

I. Conventional Wisdom and The Big Picture

I have now received about 40 solicitations—no exaggeration--for money on behalf of Bob Casey, who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania against the odious Rick Santorum. The roster of endorsers has been a Who’s Who of popular Democratic politicians and operatives, including James Carville, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and so on. All of them focus on the misdeeds of Santorum; none included so much as a photo or position paper or speech excerpt from Casey; all of them got tossed. Now, finally, I received one (from Barack Obama) that actually includes something from Bob Casey himself. This may move me to contribute to Casey, as his cause is no doubt just.

The main reason not to contribute is the reason I have chosen not to reply to the solicitations from the campaigns of Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkins, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc. These people are already going to win; they don’t need my money (OK, I’m not that sure about Cantwell, and I’m not too impressed with the job she’s done, either, but I figure that she should win).

Here is a fact that should shock: reviewing the Congressional Quarterly’s current assessment of the 468 Congressional races (435 House, 33 Senate), Santorum is the only incumbent currently favored to lose—further, his is the only seat CQ actually favors to change party (including vacated ones). They do have two Senate races rated as “No Favorite”, and a total of 13 House races in that category.

I’m sure that part of this is CQ being overly cautious: they don’t want to rub either of the party organizations the wrong way or be accused of partisanship. Much better to mislead, though I think they will get much more willing to call shots realistically once it gets close to Election Day. Then there won’t be time to dish opprobrium at them; the candidates will be much too busy dishing each other. Plenty of time still to cover their tracks and get more of the races correct. I can guarantee that, few as they may be, there will be more than one seat in the House or Senate changing party lines this year.

But still, I think there won’t be so many. The game has been rigged for incumbents, and for minimizing contested races, especially in the House.

I think there is a very strong case to argue that this Congress has been so poor, both ineffectual and ineffective—the efforts at “gay waving and flag marriage” amendments, and the immigration fiasco all being typical—that one should simply say “get the bums out” and urge ousting of incumbents of either party, everywhere. I’ve tried this argument once or twice on posting boards, and it works well. I think independents, in particular, would buy into it.

But my heart isn’t in it. One reason is that it is hypocrisy on my part: I consider my Representative, Tom Udall, to be one of the 10-15 best in Congress, and I would never consider advocating his removal. More to the point, it isn’t going to happen: the chances are zero that Tom loses, as with 80% or more of the other races.

So, the best I can say is, “When there’s doubt, err in the direction of throwing him out.” That’s for the non-partisan sites; elsewhere, it’s simply “Defeat Bushites”.

II. Excessively Specific 2006 Election Predictions

So, what we’ve got is something like NCAA Bracketology: go with the chalk (always the incumbent, or the incumbent’s party), even though you know there will be some upsets out there. Otherwise, you pick the wrong races and you get two errors. Of course, if you do that (as CQ has done), you end up with a lot of reasons to bore your readership.

The pundits have focused on the House contest for control, as opposed to the Senate (or the much-greater possibility that Democrats may end up reversing their 28-22 deficit in governorships). This sets up Conventional Wisdom’s The Day After Election Day Mainstream Media storyline, in which the public votes 53-47 for Democrats in the House, but the Republicans cling to a (reduced) majority. Along with the Smokescreen/Sideshow Saga of Sad, Lonely Lieberman (whether he wins or not).

I don’t have the staffers or the trustworthy data to look at 435 House races and make calls on them. Reading CQ’s recap of the 13 races they’ve rated even, though, I think every one of them should be considered a better-than-even chance for a change of party lines. A good example is Tom Delay’s seat (the only one currently rated even in the whole South): a well-financed, well-regarded former Democratic Congressman vs. a potential write-in movement (or two, or three) and a guy who can’t get himself off the ballot. Yes, the district favors Republican candidates, but actually not so much as you might think: DeLay didn’t feel he needed to gerrymander excessively to keep his district in the old days. So, I’ll apply that argument and give a first-order estimated result for the House: 12 Republican seats switch to the Dems, 1 the other way, a net gain of 11 for the Democrats, leaving them down 214-221.

For me, the contest for House control is symbolized by the one competitive race here in New Mexico, the Albuquerque-centered district currently represented by Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman veteran in the House. She has backed the Bushite GWOT, but has been a noticeable dissenter on a few occasions, which she has taken frequent opportunity to highlight as evidence of her “independence”. She has a tough opponent in state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, and her district’s demographics, party registration, and electoral history would all be classified as “Leans Democratic”. Her pro-military stance wins her support in a district with a lot of military personnel…

—whoa! Here is where the crux of the matter lies: apart from support for the general Bushite agenda, and more specifically Heather’s status as a card-carrying member of the Republican party caucus in good standing, what I think this particular election, and possibly the whole deal, may come down to is whether those in the military, and their friends and families, think that supporting a continuation of America’s role as referee in an Iraqi Civil War is really “supporting the troops”. Right now, though, I’d agree with CQ and say the seat “Leans Republican”, narrowly, that is. Meanwhile, Patricia Madrid is not my favorite Democratic politician, but because I know this race, and know how competitive it is, she will get my discretionary dollar.

Actually, though, my interest is much greater in the battle for control of the Senate. This is also an uphill battle, though for different reasons than the House: no gerrymandering is possible here, and as a result, a much greater percentage of the races are going to be seriously competitive. Democrats are well-organized, well-financed, with a lot of strong candidates, many of whom need have little fear of incumbents.

The problem for the Democrats is the math. The 55-45 deficit they now have means they need to pick up 6 seats out of 100, a bit higher percentage than the 15 out of 435 they need in the House. But remember, only a third of the seats are at risk this year. 40 Republicans, vs. only 27 Democrats, get to hold their seats without an election this year. Five more seats are in overwhelmingly Republican states in which the incumbents do not face strong challenges, so one would have to agree they are clearly safe: IN, MS, TX, UT, and WY. Democratic seats which look safe for re-election (including Bernie Sanders taking the place of Jeffords as “independent voting Democratic from Vermont”) number 12: CA, DE, HA, WI, MA, NM, NY, ND, WV, FL, MI, VT. That leaves 16 races that are somewhat or very competive, but the Dems would have to win 12 of them (to get to 51, and thus defeat Cheney’s potential tie-breaking vote). Nine of those 16 are held by Republicans seeking re-election, four by incumbent Democrats who are running to hold their seats (including Lieberman and New Jersey’s appointed Senator, Bob Menendez), and three vacated seats (replacing Democrats Sarbanes in MD, Dayton in MN, and the Bushite Frist in TN). Winning control for the Democrats thus means taking six (out of the 10) from the Republicans while losing none of the six they already hold.

Now, the “excessively specific” forecasting I promised: First, the bad news:
AZ—Jon Kyl, ME—Olympia Snowe, and VA—George Allen. Each has no more than about 10% chance of losing (Allen’s crypto-racist remarks will actually help him outside the suburbs, though they could cripple his national ambitions).

As with the Republican side, I see three contested Democratic seats as ultimately being high-probability wins for the incumbent’s party: WA—Cantwell (90%), NE—Ben Nelson has effectively positioned himself to capture the conservative Democrats and moderate independents (80%); and MD—Mfume (assuming he wins the primary) will restrain his strident rhetoric (80%).

Those six more holds make the score 48-42, leaving 10 for more detailed analysis.

OH—I see DeWine’s chance of losing as very promising here, due to the state’s voters making a silent rebellion against 2004, and with Secretary of State Blackwell focused on his own dim chances for Governor instead of fixing his party colleague’s race. 70% chance of Dem pickup.
RI—Lincoln Chafee is stuck in the wrong party, and he will pay this time. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
PA—It’s Bob Casey’s race to lose, and he won’t if he comes out of hiding and actually runs for his own seat, rather than just letting his proxies do it for him. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
MT—Burns has been trying to lose this one; he will shut up and try to let the state’s natural Republican majority carry him. In this case, though, the Democrats control the statehouse and the tide is going against him. 60% chance of Dem pickup.

I’m going to display a little optimism here: the odds I’ve quoted would suggest the Dems would win three of those four, but I’m going to predict all four will go Democratic, and safely enough that the races will be called by bedtime (12 a.m. eastern, 11 p.m. central). This will leave the score at 48-46 Bushites, change the key storyline to the battle for control of the Senate, and leave insomniacs biting their nails over the remaining six races:

CT—As I have elsewhere indicated, there’s a 90% chance the Dems will end up with the vote in the caucus, based on a 50% chance of a Lieberman win and a 20% chance he will turn traitor and either go with the Republican caucus or abstain in the battle for control (see “Worst-Case Scenario” below). The race may be decided by bedtime (the results will come relatively early), but if it goes Lieberman’s way everyone will still need to sweat it, in case his vote becomes a critical one.
NV—I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that Ensign’s seat is safe vs. Jimmy Carter’s son Jack. 40% chance of losing.
MN—I have to accept the argument that the Republicans have a strong candidate in Mark Kennedy, and that the state is no longer a sure thing for Democrats. 50-50.
NJ—I am really worried about this one: Jersey Democrats have the machine, but have used it badly, and Kean, Jr. is a formidable foe. 50-50.

If the Republicans pick up a seat in either MN or NJ, the game is over, unless Jack Carter pulls the upset in Nevada. My chosen scenario, though, calls for narrow party holds in both, a late-night loss for the Dems in Nevada, someone who is presumed a Democrat winning in CT, and a 49-49 count with two races still too close to call at 2 a.m. Eastern:

TN—Republican Corker will hold the early lead, but the Democratic machine officials controlling the Memphis precincts will stubbornly hold out their returns and see what size majority they need to get their man Harold Ford in. I give the Democrats a 60% chance of pulling out a victory which will be ripe for challenge and/or litigation.
MO—Similar situation to TN, but reversed. The Democrats have as their candidate a touted “strong candidate” in Claire McCaskill, but the rural vote for Bob “No” Talent will pull him alongside and then, finally, narrowly ahead. Missouri disappoints, once again. 40% chance for Democrats.

III. One More Red Nightmare

As I envision it, then, the Senate will end up 50-50, requiring no particular shenanigans to retain control for the Republicans (albeit shakily) and progressive activists will once again gain a moral victory while losing. If something (else) goes wrong, though, for the Bushites (such as losing Nevada or Missouri), they would still have two cards to play:
1) Stonewalling seating Harold Ford—if the Republicans can put the outcome into question, and throw this one into Recount City, they can block seating him indefinitely. Based on the 2000 election, who would doubt they could or would do so?
or
2) Worst-Case Scenario: If the Democrats somehow get to 51-49, with the 51st vote being Joe Lieberman, then some nasty backroom dealing could go down for his decisive vote. Bushite Ace of Spades Karl Rove (who claims to be “a personal friend”) will remind Joe of every slight he suffered at the hands of his erstwhile party, as well as all the nice things the Republicans have said about him in the general election campaign (not to mention withholding all support from their party’s putative candidate). This will not be enough, though.

So, what is the offer that Sour Joe will not be able to refuse? The talking heads’ talk of Lieberman as Defense Secretary in place of Rumsfeld earlier this year was just that, I think. Rumsfeld would veto that concept, as would Dubya, and would Lieberman really be stupid enough to give up a fresh six-year term for two years as Chief Scapegoat, followed by eternal damnation? I think not. Nor do I think that Richard Lugar, who is no fan of Bush’s Iraq war, would roll over and let Lieberman take the Chairmanship of Armed Services.

I think the bait would be an offer to head up a “non-partisan” committee to study the Iraq War, with the unofficial commission being to find a way to get American soldiers out of the firing line by November, 2008. I think he would find it his duty to take such an offer, perhaps abstaining from the vote on control of the Senate (which in certain circumstances, like Ford’s seating being blocked, might still leave it to Cheney’s tie-breaker). This would leave the Senate essentially deadlocked, the House nearly so, but then the Bushites have no legislative agenda left, anyway.

Not to be (too) cynical, but such a deal would leave a perfect scenario for John McCain to lead the nation in a 2008 election-year effort to re-focus GWOT on something other than Iraq’s problems, and possibly revive Rove’s dreams of a generation of Republican control of government. In this scenario, the public good that would be the end (or near-end) of American casualties in Iraq—something that would seem to benefit all--would come at the cost of any chance of putting the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule in the dock of Congressional inquiry with subpoena power—the Bushites’ current nightmare.

Frankly, at this point I don’t trust Lieberman: I missed on the question of whether he would do the dirty deed and run as an independent if he lost the primary, and I do hold it against him.

My thinking is also colored by my recent re-reading of Gore Vidal’s historical novel 1876. My objectives were to once again enjoy Vidal’s cutting wit and to re-visit just exactly how that election was stolen from popular vote winner Samuel Tilden—in the Electoral College, and beyond.

Superficially, 1876 parallels 2000: the Electoral College formally trumping the popular vote, and even some of the details, like the Supreme Court getting sucked in, the Democratic loser fighting nice while the Republicans played for keeps, and Florida (!) playing a key role (though of the three or four states stolen for eventual President Rutherford B. Hayes, Louisiana’s theft was the most egregious).
If one looks at the historical significance of 1876, though, there are a couple of gaps in the parallels which might fit better with this year’s program. First was that the key issue in the 1876 election was the sleaze and corruption of the administration of Republican Ulysses S. Grant: that was not present in 2000 (really, though some would argue Clinton’s sexual misconduct and impeachment would qualify), but the issue of Republican official corruption will certainly be present this year. Second was the deal which settled the election. Essentially, the Southern Democrats gave up their party’s Presidential candidate after the election in exchange for a promise to remove Federal troops from the remaining Southern states in which they were posted, in effect ending the Reconstruction period.

My best hope is not that Bushite control of the Federal government will be ended—I think that’s too farfetched. It is that another electoral mess, this time goring the elephant, will lead to a deal bringing about real improvements in processes and methods—public financing of federal elections, the elimination of the Electoral College, and national standards for voting machines and counting of votes.